Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= * Category talk:Slang These categories are rather loose in concept and could use further refining, retooling or renaming. Any discussion, or revival of previous discussions on these matters would be gratefully appreciate! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) *Category:Dwellings Newly created category.--31dot 21:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC) *Category:Fictional Covers fictional items. - 05:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Non-corporeal beings We already have a list of about 30 species. Given that we know of quite a few entities/individuals from some of these, there are probably 50-60 articles that would fit this. Two ways we could approach this: * One category that includes both individuals and the species (easier, since in some of these cases, the lines are skewed) * OR we could have separate cats for the individuals and the species. --- Jaz 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Burial Rituals I recently created the article "coffin" and couldn't find a very appropriate cat for it other than "Religion" which I noticed cenotaph, comra and crucifix (to name but a few) are located. Therefore, I propose the creation of a cat called "Burial rituals" or similar to best categorise these articles. -- TrekFan Talk 11:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC) :Support; It could be a subcat of Religion. Not sure about the title, though...--31dot 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::Wouldn't this be under Category:Ceremonies? It seems that is where most of the pages that would go under this new category seem to be. If so then I Support one called "Death Ceremonies", since not all species bury their dead. - Archduk3:talk 06:26, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Buildings Suggested by M.vd by simply creating the category, here is the discussion from the talk page, moved here: :See the article building which is being suggested for deletion. A building could be called any constructed objects which: has been build on the ground or an object connected to solid terrain (treehouse, not a space ship), must not have an independant live support system (that would make it it's own enviroment, or a station/habitat) and must only be made out of one solid section. (military compound and street are not buildings, but a palace or mall can be). :The section would connect together article about types of buildings (temples and how they are build in different cultures, house - housing and how different species live, bunker, prison, school, shop, bar), next to that it would connect article about ancient earth buildings and buildings of the above mentioned type with there own special descriptions like Temple of T'Panit or Zefram Cochrane High School and articles about individual parts that make up a building like: wall, door, basement, room, garden etc. Other suggested categories are facility, compound and structure; which will have there own unique descriptions.M.vd 00:58, September 7, 2009 (UTC) Secondly, unless you can start coming up with a suggested list of these, and post it on this page (don't add them to the category). -- sulfur 12:24, September 7, 2009 (UTC) :I think you switched pages to quickly i can't find a firstly. But i will use three types of buildings that are very common in star trek, to show people why we need this category. Besides having temple, shrine and church in the building category, we can create another category called religious buildings that will contain the individual names of temples, shrines and churches. Articles called Bajoran religious buildings, Klingon religious buildings, Human religious buildings, Vulcan religious buildings; could also be made. :temples ::Apollo's temple is placed under landmarks but is still a temple by earths standard even if noone came to worship there. ::Temple of Kural-Hanesh, under establishments and is clearly seen to be a building. ::Temple of Iponu, which is placed under establishments - correctly this time unlike the article Bajoran temple which is only about the temple on Deep Space Nine which is not explained in the title see, shrines below. :Shrines ::Bajoran shrine, placed under establishments which is wrong because the articles should be about different bajoran shrines/temples, and not just about the one on Deep Space Nine, which should be called Bajoran temple on Deep Space Nine, so we can split this one up in two articles. ::Nechisti shrine, now placed under religion ::Kenda Shrine, religion and bajor :Churches, we actually lack articles about churches in the Deep Space Nine series. ::The one on crushers homeplanet, Unnamed church on Caldos colony ::The church in the fair haven program the doctor encountered, Church of Fair Haven :This is a minor example. M.vd 00:08, September 8, 2009 (UTC) ::All this has convinced me of is that there should be a category for religious locations, since not all shrines have to be in a building. - Archduk3:talk 06:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Mission and expeditions A category to cover all expeditions and missions within the Federation as well as the ones from other species, such as Arias Expedition, Away mission, Omega training mission, Space shuttle missions, and Vulcanian expedition. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Not a fan of the name, but support the idea. - Archduk3:talk 13:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::Support. I would suggest simply "Events" as a name. As an aside, I seem to remember this or something similar being discussed before, and it didn't seem to gain traction. --31dot 20:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :This idea seems like it could also cover the pages listed for the proposed category below, if it was simply "Events". - 16:46, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't think an expedition can be subsumed under an "Event" category - or if it can, then this category title is so generic that it won't really be useful. I'm not opposed to the original suggestion, if a good title can be found, but I think "Event" isn't it. -- Cid Highwind 18:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Expeditions could be a subcat of Events.--31dot 22:30, January 27, 2010 (UTC) Interstellar incidents A category which could feature all interstellar events, including the wars but also Fornax Disaster or maybe the nexus, too. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Since all the wars are already, or should be, under Category:Conflicts, I don't see the need for another category for them as well, though something like Category:Interstellar phenomena could cover the other two. - Archduk3:talk 13:31, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::"Phenomena" is typically used to describe naturally occurring things - not "artificial" ones like wars or disasters. Oppose that suggested title. "Incident" isn't much different from "Event" (see suggestion above), and as such, probably to generic to be anything but a super-category for others. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :I would ask that if it allows us to add these pages, would creating a "super-category" really be a bad thing? - 01:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::We'd still need a "sub-category" to actually place articles in - otherwise, not necessarily, no. -- Cid Highwind 17:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC) Production POV categories Different universe categories I think it would be useful to have categories for the new alternate reality and the prime reality, on the pattern of the existing Category:Mirror universe. Such categories could be added to templates along with Cid Highwind's banners. I see that there was a proposal a while back for a real-world POV category, which I also think would be useful, to be added to the template. I'm proposing that just about all articles could be placed in one of the following categories: *Category:Prime universe *Category:Alternate reality; the already existing Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel (alternate reality) would be a subcategory of this. It could be used in combination with the final version of User:Cid Highwind/articletype/nt, probably in a template. *Category:Multiple realities (to be used in a template in conjunction with User:Cid Highwind/articletype/xx) *Category:Mirror universe (a template could be created, using User:Cid Highwind/articletype/mu and this category, for use similar to the current Template:realworld) *Category:Memory Alpha articles written from the real-world POV (or other wording) Prior discussion of a real-world category is here, but I think that the problems mentioned there (such as uncertainty about whether to put novels and episodes in the category) seem to have been resolved. —Josiah Rowe 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :Whatever is being decided here, the final "timeline names" should be the same throughout the site - so, wait for that TF discussion to come to an end before creating any of these. -- Cid Highwind 16:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, I agree that the names should be uniform. I was assuming (probably prematurely) that there was an emerging consensus supporting "alternate reality". I certainly wouldn't create anything until there's a clearer consensus. —Josiah Rowe 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ::I am a fairly new user here, but I support much of this. Anything which clearly differentiates the new timeline as being an alternate one sounds good to me.However, I don't think we need a category for the existing timeline as Category:Prime universe. we can simply provide a category for the alternate one. the alternate one only covers one movie and one set of characters. the prime universe one would be a bit unwieldy, since it would cover 4 of the five series (except for Enterprise, I assume.) --Pulsar110 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Alternate Reality novels Not certain if I really put this in the right section, and I don't have a name figured out, but I was thinking perhaps a category for the novels set in the alternate reality as seen in Star Trek. This suggestion is made for a few reasons, such as sorting by the 'series' or perhaps continuity for a better term, and that there might be an interest to be able to find the books set within that reality/continuity (this part mostly would go with what I had just said, I guess). Perhaps this is already planned, I don't know I didn't see anything categorized for it and thought it should be.--Terran Officer 22:39, September 30, 2009 (UTC) :This might be better approached as simply an "alternate reality" page along the same lines as the Star Trek (Pocket) page, and just keep sorting them into novels. But I can see the possible appeal. -- sulfur 02:57, October 1, 2009 (UTC) ::It might be too early for this, but I agree with the idea, something like "Novels (alternate reality)" or "Novels (alternate)". - Archduk3:talk 03:20, October 1, 2009 (UTC) :::I was planning to wait to see how the novels were labelled and/or organised before deciding on where the information will go - my current thinking is that they'd be included in Star Trek (Pocket), since they'll probably just have the Star Trek title. Each novel has a nav box in any event to link them all together. I don't think a separate category is really needed, though - all novels, regardless of series, go into Category:Novels as it stands - although it might not be a bad idea to break that one down a bit now. Even if that is broken down, they can probably still stay in the main category, like the smaller novel-only series would. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 06:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC) That's more or less what I was thinking is that they'd get into the novel category but also their own subcategory or whatever. I mention this simply because while MA only makes summaries (and not be canon) for the novels, they are/will surly be different as they continue from the movie. I suppose they might not need their own category (unless they get some sort of a 'series' title) but I thought it'd make things somewhat easier for the following of that storyline (and the fact we have a category for the things relating to the newest movie). --Terran Officer 20:36, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree with Michael, we should definitely postpone this decision until we know the "official" label these novels will get (if any), and then use that. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, October 8, 2009 (UTC) LaserDiscs Like Category:DVDs, for LaserDiscs. - 00:43, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :I'm actually surprised we didn't have it already. -- sulfur 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I support this category. – Tom 19:08, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Maintenance categories Wiki "top" category I would like to suggest a new category, which can serve as the top-level category for all other categories on this wiki. it can be called "Main" or something similar. Another alternative name would be "Root". The central reason I am suggesting this is that currently two of the biggest categories, Category:Lists and Category:Star Trek, are contained only in category:Memory Alpha orphaned categories. I feel there is little reason that our two biggest categories need to be considered "orphaned." Creating one main hierarchical category would remedy that situation. It would also give more unity, coherence and centrality to other people's continuing efforts here at this wiki. --Pulsar110 12:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :At that point the "main" category becomes an orphan too. To be honest, the Lists, Star Trek, and Maintenance categories have been done that way since (more or less) the get-go. They were put into the "orphaned" category so that they were no longer orphans. If there were a special keyword category that could be used to be an automatic top level one, then that might be a good option, but as far as I understand, there isn't one at all. Right now, the three categories I mention all have vastly different logics, and are all in different POVs. -- sulfur 12:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ermm, but that's the point. ok, we could call it "content", and then it could be a subcategory of the "Maintenance category." there is a benefit to having a category for purely hierarchical and organizational reasons. also, once it's created, it could potentially be a place for a number of other top-level categories as well. --Pulsar110 12:43, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :Humour me... avoid the hypothetical "other" top-level categories. In our category tree, what else might fit in as a top-level category (other than maybe "images")? Admittedly, the tree has grown a bit organically, but we've also tried to keep it fairly rigidly defined with "maintenance" being the "real world, wiki related", "star trek" being the in-universe stuff, and "lists" being not much more than a place to define... well... lists of stuff. I'm just not entirely certain that I see the benefit for "organizational" reasons just yet. -- sulfur 12:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Well, for one thing we could redo much of the category structure. cultural works of art such as the actual series, and perhaps other cultural works of art like novels, could perhaps be one top-level category. objects on the shows, such as equipment and technical items, should all be another top-level category. these two could be made separate from each other. currently, the Star trek category serves as a catch-all for most or all categories. --Pulsar110 12:51, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::As sulfur already mentioned, we have a pretty rigid naming scheme for categories going on - and, I think, not for the worse. "In-universe" categories get names without any prefix (for example Category:Starships), categories for "franchise" articles (also often called "real world articles") are prefixed with "Star Trek" - and last but not least, all maintenance categories (which aren't encyclopedic content in the first place) are prefixed with "Memory Alpha". ::Essentially, the reason for having three different category trees, is that we have articles for three different main purposes on this wiki - and I see no real use for some artificial category that connects those three. In fact, I think that the two "content root categories" shouldn't even be listed as an "orphaned category" (because they don't have a parent category by design). This could be achieved by delisting them there, or by making the orphan category a HIDDENCAT. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Well, I think the current structure also prevents anyone from coming along sometime in the future and changing it if the community wishes to. for example, there are categories for culture, art, science, etc. What if someone decides a little further down the road that they'd like to give a more prominent role to some or all of these? the answer is that they can't. it's good if a wiki's structure in categories can be a bit open to subtle change and evolution. --Pulsar110 18:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not sure how a "possible, future reorganization" of subcategories of our main in-universe category is relevant in a discussion about a supercategory for that main category. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Specific category listings This isn't a formal request for a category and might not be depending on how this discussion goes. Basically I'm wondering why we don't have a category like Category:Memory Alpha images (USS Enterprise-D). It sure would be nice to have all the images of one particular ship in it's own category to browse over and see if an image already exists. As of now Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) contains 1,721 images making it a real pain to find a particular image with a particular ship. This could be expanded further to also include categories for specific people. At least those that appear in a lot of images like Category:Memory Alpha images (Quark). My naming might not be the best but I hope my intentions are explained properly. — Morder (talk) 21:24, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :This sounds like a nice idea in principle. Perhaps the name of the category could include whatever general category of images is involved, such as Category:Memory Alpha starship images (USS Enterprise).--31dot 21:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::Definitely, yes! :) However, I think the prefix should stay "Memory Alpha images", for proper sorting of the categories themselves. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Well, the next question of this particular proposal would be where to draw the line. In particular we have tons of photos of say the Enterprise but maybe only 1 of ''Alice''. In addition I propose that any image that contains more than one ship must contain more than one category. Example: File:Ambassador starboard of Galaxy.jpg - however it becomes unweildly when there is a battle scene. In addition what about images that contain no named vessels - or only one like File:Andorian fleet.jpg should the category then be something like Category:Memory Alpha images (Andorian starship)? Lots to think about before this even get's started... — Morder (talk) 22:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::There's something about this in the archived discussion over at Category talk:Memory Alpha images, already. In general, I think it would be a good idea to follow the basic idea of categorization, and try to become more specific with each level of subcategories. A subcategory of "(starships)" could be "(Federation starships)", a subcategory of that could be the aforementioned "(USS Enterprise-D)". An image showing two or more Federation starships would then be listed in the "Federation starships" category, and only in one of the individual starship categories if that starship is the major focus of the image - after all, keep in mind that image categories are mostly for editors, not for readers. Someone looking for an image showing two Fed starships probably wouldn't search the "Enterprise" category, and vice versa. If a category would only contain one, or very few, images, it is unnecessary IMO. -- Cid Highwind 23:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm for this idea, and as Cid said above, the categories should get more specific with each level. My suggestion would be to have a "(Galaxy Class)" category before a "(USS Enterprise-D)" category. As most of our images of the Galaxy class class are of the Enterprise, not counting Dominion War battles, a ship specific category may not be needed. - Archduk3:talk 00:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC)